Late reply here, but I don't like to leave legitimate concerns to things I've posted unnoticed
Existing models DO take as many factors as can be recorded into account. There's two sides any decent model. You have the simulation side, where we take all the physical laws we can simulate at a reasonable accurate level and perform those, then you have the multi-factor emulation side where you take all known independent variables and generate a best fit equation for the differences. You build your model on one set of years, and perform hypothesis verification on another set.
Even when we don't completely understand the direct effect of every factor, we can have a model that gives a mostly accurate picture of what happens. It's like the relationship between newtonian mechanics and quantum physics. We don't have to model perfectly to get very accurate results.
I asked the GP for a falsible hypothesis, because attacking percieved flaws in one area of your oponent's argument(when they're arguing rationally, not logically that is) is trivial. It's incredibly easy to poke holes(that frequently aren't holes) in arguments where they seem counter-intuitive in any way. This isn't intuition, though, it's science.
As an alternative, find a SCIENTIST'S hypothesis about global warming that has been invalidated in the past 5 years, That wouldn't mean global warming is false, depending on the hypothesis, but it could invalidate some arguments people are making. My increasing concern is that even scientific laymen aren't taking this approach.
I'll put myself out there and make a claim: in 5 years, if atmospheric CO2 has increased at least 10%, average summer temperatures (over a 3 year period to factor out el nino and la nina) will have increased at least 0.05 C. It's a trivial claim, but one I can be reasonably confident in based on global warming trends.
I love this. You think the existing models don't take solar variation into account? You have reduced a complex, multi-factor system of equations to one independent variable. Congratulations on letting anything that sounds like it agrees with you at all prove all other ideas wrong even if there's nothing contradictory at all. Sun cycles are 10 year data cycles that don't explain 100 year trends in the slightest. If you look at the climate data since the invention of the thermometer, the waves produced are already quite visible. This was the same argument they made in the 70s, when global warming was first introduced as a theory(but it was far less understood then).
Instead of offering useless conjecture about what people are going to say, how about you give us a nice solid hypothesis about how much cooler it will be when, and how that relates to existing global warming projections. I dare you to actually make a meaningful falsible claim instead of putting words in the mouth of people you disagree with.
Because under Bush, they absorbed the FBI from the Justice department. It was an absurd change, but that's why they're pursuing all sorts of non-terrorism related things.
Believe it or not, microsoft has a half-assed Java-light language that compiles to.NET. I'm not talking about C#, a language that literally copies the syntax of java called J#.
I know we're all naturally curious creatures, and love a good narrative, but no experimental technology, political conflict, or conspiracy surrounding a single crash in the 40s is going to have much bearing against todays in-use technologies, political conflicts, or conspiracies(if there are any). Whatever happened is essentially irrelevant today, unless it was aliens(it wasn't aliens).
Ok, well I was mostly joking, but you're forgetting the pareto principle.
If they can eliminate 80% of file sharing with a 20% offort of blocking the DNS, the remainder can be treated just as I mentioned. If they had to expend that much effort on every person willing to google "movie torrents" and just click a link the FBI wouldn't be able to keep up.
Yes, that's true, except there's a step before hypothesis. Observe. You're not allowed to use data from your observations that generated the hypothesis to support it, but you are allowed to use data to build a hypothesis in the first place.
As their comic points out, property values correlate to liposuction searches. That's an interesting fact that you might make a socioeconic hypothesis based on. You could then turn to other avenues of research to validate your hypothesis.
Not everything in science is a race to conclusions.
I feel like we're only 20-50 years away from the stuff you can attach to your body being better in most ways than the originals. The only problem is a I feel like bionic limb replacements are going to cost an arm and a leg.
Well, no, that's not quite right. I had a college class that covered Chernobyl in dpeth, and the immediate cause of the accident could be percieved as a "cost-cutting" measure. It was an unauthorized experiment to determine how much electricity could be extraced from a reactor being put into "maintenance mode." Since that had pulled the controls rods out while the cooling system wasn't running, a meltdown was the OBVIOUS consequence.
The scope of the disaster was definetly caused by what can only be called cost cutting measures when compared against american designs. Eastern European breeder reactors were not built with enclosing concrete domes to save time and effort. If TMI had been built like that, thousands in Pennsylvania would have died of radiation poisoning.
You got packets? In our day we had bits. Bits of lead. And there was no routing, you had to go to every single computer and ask its operator "hey, is this your bit?"
Here's a hint: everything has a license fee, even stuff they produced themselves because they have to pay the actors per credit. They moved away from science fiction for pro-wrestling because intellectuals are too diverse and critical an audience to reduce to a simple demographic to advertise to. If there were a premium package from my cable company that focused on real documentaries, non-action oriented science fiction, and absolutely no ads that belittle my intelligence, I'd pay 3-5 times as much as people pay for their sports packages. I get miffed because absolutely every single television channel assumes I'm a blubbering moron or blubbering moron compatible.
The following were good, but are now blubbering moron bait: Discovery Channel(trucks driving on ice? REALLY?) History Channel(we're 100% certain that this piece of rock was portal to alien jesus, here's an "expert") Sci Fi(Covered in depth here, but REALLY bad. Hasn't touched the ideas of real speculative fiction in a decade) Animal Planet(Nature documentaries? Screw that, pet reality shows!!!) TLC(babies are all anyone ever wants to see!!!! We're SURE!!!)
The following still make some attempt an any real depth BBC America PBS
I don't inherently loathe television as a medium, I loath spoonfed bullshit supportded by psychologically manipulative bullshit.
The answer is multicasting(which TCP/IP doesn't support on it's own) and matchmaking. Even if you multi-cast the server messages, you still need a fixed Model for your game, which devs will write to run on the given hardware(Xbox). From an engineering standpoint, it makes sense to host on a player machine, even ignoring the cost benefit to Microsoft.
And all the "blue dog" democrats who insisted on that instread of single payer are out of office, replaced by republicans. I can't remember the last peice of actually liberal legilsation passed in the United States at the federal level. Maybe Clinton's budget where he cut military spending in 1998? Kind of a weak example.
Slashdot Mirror
Late reply here, but I don't like to leave legitimate concerns to things I've posted unnoticed
Existing models DO take as many factors as can be recorded into account. There's two sides any decent model. You have the simulation side, where we take all the physical laws we can simulate at a reasonable accurate level and perform those, then you have the multi-factor emulation side where you take all known independent variables and generate a best fit equation for the differences. You build your model on one set of years, and perform hypothesis verification on another set.
Even when we don't completely understand the direct effect of every factor, we can have a model that gives a mostly accurate picture of what happens. It's like the relationship between newtonian mechanics and quantum physics. We don't have to model perfectly to get very accurate results.
I asked the GP for a falsible hypothesis, because attacking percieved flaws in one area of your oponent's argument(when they're arguing rationally, not logically that is) is trivial. It's incredibly easy to poke holes(that frequently aren't holes) in arguments where they seem counter-intuitive in any way. This isn't intuition, though, it's science.
As an alternative, find a SCIENTIST'S hypothesis about global warming that has been invalidated in the past 5 years, That wouldn't mean global warming is false, depending on the hypothesis, but it could invalidate some arguments people are making. My increasing concern is that even scientific laymen aren't taking this approach.
I'll put myself out there and make a claim: in 5 years, if atmospheric CO2 has increased at least 10%, average summer temperatures (over a 3 year period to factor out el nino and la nina) will have increased at least 0.05 C. It's a trivial claim, but one I can be reasonably confident in based on global warming trends.
I love this. You think the existing models don't take solar variation into account? You have reduced a complex, multi-factor system of equations to one independent variable. Congratulations on letting anything that sounds like it agrees with you at all prove all other ideas wrong even if there's nothing contradictory at all. Sun cycles are 10 year data cycles that don't explain 100 year trends in the slightest. If you look at the climate data since the invention of the thermometer, the waves produced are already quite visible. This was the same argument they made in the 70s, when global warming was first introduced as a theory(but it was far less understood then).
Instead of offering useless conjecture about what people are going to say, how about you give us a nice solid hypothesis about how much cooler it will be when, and how that relates to existing global warming projections. I dare you to actually make a meaningful falsible claim instead of putting words in the mouth of people you disagree with.
I was with you until the pointless misogyny at the end of your post.
Because under Bush, they absorbed the FBI from the Justice department. It was an absurd change, but that's why they're pursuing all sorts of non-terrorism related things.
It was strictly conjecture from when IPv4 was just released. The realities of how the internet was actually used defined IPv6 instead.
Believe it or not, microsoft has a half-assed Java-light language that compiles to .NET. I'm not talking about C#, a language that literally copies the syntax of java called J#.
Welcome to the windows security world. it's the end of "it just works" and the begining of "it just works as long as you do X, Y, and Z right".
I know we're all naturally curious creatures, and love a good narrative, but no experimental technology, political conflict, or conspiracy surrounding a single crash in the 40s is going to have much bearing against todays in-use technologies, political conflicts, or conspiracies(if there are any). Whatever happened is essentially irrelevant today, unless it was aliens(it wasn't aliens).
Then it's not a float. That's an infinite precision number. Floating point numbers have a fixed precision, but not a fixed magnitude.
Ok, well I was mostly joking, but you're forgetting the pareto principle.
If they can eliminate 80% of file sharing with a 20% offort of blocking the DNS, the remainder can be treated just as I mentioned. If they had to expend that much effort on every person willing to google "movie torrents" and just click a link the FBI wouldn't be able to keep up.
FBI agents with guns.
Yes, that's true, except there's a step before hypothesis. Observe. You're not allowed to use data from your observations that generated the hypothesis to support it, but you are allowed to use data to build a hypothesis in the first place.
As their comic points out, property values correlate to liposuction searches. That's an interesting fact that you might make a socioeconic hypothesis based on. You could then turn to other avenues of research to validate your hypothesis.
Not everything in science is a race to conclusions.
Other places have privacy laws that google isn't ready to lawyer about.
I feel like we're only 20-50 years away from the stuff you can attach to your body being better in most ways than the originals. The only problem is a I feel like bionic limb replacements are going to cost an arm and a leg.
You're misunderstanding. Electro cution is willful execution by electicity. Things dying is only one of the requisite parts of the definition.
The gym one is likely the result of sweat. Image based fingerprint scanning is probably MORE reliable.
But they would have a picture of who it was who showed the fake fingerprint if they have security issues.
Well, no, that's not quite right. I had a college class that covered Chernobyl in dpeth, and the immediate cause of the accident could be percieved as a "cost-cutting" measure. It was an unauthorized experiment to determine how much electricity could be extraced from a reactor being put into "maintenance mode." Since that had pulled the controls rods out while the cooling system wasn't running, a meltdown was the OBVIOUS consequence.
The scope of the disaster was definetly caused by what can only be called cost cutting measures when compared against american designs. Eastern European breeder reactors were not built with enclosing concrete domes to save time and effort. If TMI had been built like that, thousands in Pennsylvania would have died of radiation poisoning.
And so google misses the mark. All that strategizing, and they miss the fact that canada needs flying moose.
You got packets? In our day we had bits. Bits of lead. And there was no routing, you had to go to every single computer and ask its operator "hey, is this your bit?"
Here's a hint: everything has a license fee, even stuff they produced themselves because they have to pay the actors per credit. They moved away from science fiction for pro-wrestling because intellectuals are too diverse and critical an audience to reduce to a simple demographic to advertise to. If there were a premium package from my cable company that focused on real documentaries, non-action oriented science fiction, and absolutely no ads that belittle my intelligence, I'd pay 3-5 times as much as people pay for their sports packages. I get miffed because absolutely every single television channel assumes I'm a blubbering moron or blubbering moron compatible.
The following were good, but are now blubbering moron bait:
Discovery Channel(trucks driving on ice? REALLY?)
History Channel(we're 100% certain that this piece of rock was portal to alien jesus, here's an "expert")
Sci Fi(Covered in depth here, but REALLY bad. Hasn't touched the ideas of real speculative fiction in a decade)
Animal Planet(Nature documentaries? Screw that, pet reality shows!!!)
TLC(babies are all anyone ever wants to see!!!! We're SURE!!!)
The following still make some attempt an any real depth
BBC America
PBS
I don't inherently loathe television as a medium, I loath spoonfed bullshit supportded by psychologically manipulative bullshit.
To be fair, inflation seems to occur on the money->points side not the points->games side, meaning it's inflation immune.
Both if you crash into Mars along the way.
The answer is multicasting(which TCP/IP doesn't support on it's own) and matchmaking. Even if you multi-cast the server messages, you still need a fixed Model for your game, which devs will write to run on the given hardware(Xbox). From an engineering standpoint, it makes sense to host on a player machine, even ignoring the cost benefit to Microsoft.
And all the "blue dog" democrats who insisted on that instread of single payer are out of office, replaced by republicans. I can't remember the last peice of actually liberal legilsation passed in the United States at the federal level. Maybe Clinton's budget where he cut military spending in 1998? Kind of a weak example.